RuntheDamnBall Posted March 29, 2007 Posted March 29, 2007 I nominate the Tom Verlaine led band Television. One of the greatest listening experiences of an album front to back is their album Marquee Moon. Highly recomended. Agreed.
The Dean Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Unreal. I know you don't like the talents they had, just as I don't care for the talents I will admit Steely Dan has, but come on. Let's compare, shall we? Great voices? Neither band has traditionally 'good' voices. Great musicians? The Clash weren't, really, but then again, Steely Dan relied on a heavy dose of studio musicians and overdubbing. Songwriting? I'll take the Clash's immediacy, and if four chords never=genius, then Chuck Berry sucks, too. The Clash might not have been good at much more than writing and playing great songs that spoke to people upon impact (and I'll beg to differ as they brought a lot of different styles to punk rock, and were in fact great fans of the whole canon of American music), but even if that's it, to deny they had any talent is pretty ridiculous. I have to admit I lack the skill to defend the best songwriting duo of the last half of the century (and all of this century) to a band who's entire legacy (as far as I can tell) is rebellion against the music of the day. Here's the best I can muster while half (OK, three-quarters) drunk: Fagen is a cross between Duke Ellington and Ray Charles. Combined with the sardonic wit of Walter Becker, they developed a musical genre of their own. Their earliest music still sounds as modern and fresh as the day it was written. NOBODY plays Steely Dan Music, except for Steely Dan (and Don and Walt solo efforts...mostly, Don's). Fagen and Becker had the sense to hire the best musicians $$ could buy to play their complex and intoxicating tunes (sue them, OK) and use the best production techniques available (why bother to make the music sound as good as it possibly can sound?). (It should be noted that both Donald and Walter have become very improved players and have taken to playing a lot of the stuff themselves, these days.) The Clash (I admit I'm no expert on the band) were influential in their time, but never even tried to reach a high level of musical proficiency. In fact (unless I'm totally wrong, which is always a good possibility) their mission was ANTI proficiency. In a way, I understand their frustration to the crap that was popular during that period of time. Hell, I think crap dominates EVERY period of time. They went for RAW and IMMEDIACY. I can almost respect that. If Joe Strummer had half the musical talent of Daryl Strummer, it may have even sounded good (I can see the abuse for this coming a mile away ). To their credit, they weren't driven by commercialism (if you know me, the WORST sin of any musician)...but, they weren't driven by making the best music they could make, either. I admit the Clash were VERY influential (far more so than The Dan) as any drunken 14-year old with a guitar could play their four-chord (this is a gift to you) style. Their low-level dropout anger lyrics resonate with the disaffected, the unlettered and the unwashed (cheap shot just to make me laugh while I took another drink). But seriously, I think of the difference between these bands the way I think of the difference between shows like (and bear with me as I'm making this up on the fly) SportsNight and Survivor. The high road to differentiation from the norm vs. the low road. Better TV vs Cheaper TV. Acquiring more skill to be BETTER than the others vs ignoring skill and differentiating through image and attitude. I'm sure I could have done a better job of that had I been sober...but, let's continue... The Dan wrote (and writes) intricate music (unusual and difficult chord changes, time signature changes, etc.) that sounds smooth, but has a very dark underside. Their lyrics are complex (sometimes impenetrable) tales of drug abuse, losers, and old men having questionable relationships with young women. Yet these songs are often played in malls. The Clash wrote songs with obvious lyrics of rebellion and teenage rage (I'm way out of my area of expertise as there are only a few clash songs I recall). Who's REALLY the more subversive band here? The Dan has people who hate (or know nothing about) Jazz listening to jazz-inflected music, filled with snarky and, sometimes, evil lyrics. Does the Clash infect people unwittingly? OK...let's move on. There is more, but I have to same something for the inevitable back-and-forth (plus the fact that I'm far drunker than I was when I started this diatribe). I will end with this. What do MUSICIANS think? By "musicians", I don't mean any dork with a guitar. I mean RESPECTED professionals. In fact, I'd take that further. What do the mentors of the mentors of the mentors of these musicians think? I'm guessing that's not a real discussion. OK, I'm boring me. Time to check the other threads.
X. Benedict Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 OK, I'm boring me. Time to check the other threads. What kind of Pretzel Logic is that?
The Dean Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 What kind of Pretzel Logic is that? Fu#k if I know, X...I'm SMASHED!
DC Tom Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Fu#k if I know, X...I'm SMASHED! Imagine how bored you'd be with yourself if you were sober.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 I have to admit I lack the skill to defend the best songwriting duo of the last half of the century (and all of this century) to a band who's entire legacy (as far as I can tell) is rebellion against the music of the day. Here's the best I can muster while half (OK, three-quarters) drunk: Fagen is a cross between Duke Ellington and Ray Charles. Combined with the sardonic wit of Walter Becker, they developed a musical genre of their own. Their earliest music still sounds as modern and fresh as the day it was written. NOBODY plays Steely Dan Music, except for Steely Dan (and Don and Walt solo efforts...mostly, Don's). Fagen and Becker had the sense to hire the best musicians $$ could buy to play their complex and intoxicating tunes (sue them, OK) and use the best production techniques available (why bother to make the music sound as good as it possibly can sound?). (It should be noted that both Donald and Walter have become very improved players and have taken to playing a lot of the stuff themselves, these days.) The Clash (I admit I'm no expert on the band) were influential in their time, but never even tried to reach a high level of musical proficiency. In fact (unless I'm totally wrong, which is always a good possibility) their mission was ANTI proficiency. In a way, I understand their frustration to the crap that was popular during that period of time. Hell, I think crap dominates EVERY period of time. They went for RAW and IMMEDIACY. I can almost respect that. If Joe Strummer had half the musical talent of Daryl Strummer, it may have even sounded good (I can see the abuse for this coming a mile away ). To their credit, they weren't driven by commercialism (if you know me, the WORST sin of any musician)...but, they weren't driven by making the best music they could make, either. I admit the Clash were VERY influential (far more so than The Dan) as any drunken 14-year old with a guitar could play their four-chord (this is a gift to you) style. Their low-level dropout anger lyrics resonate with the disaffected, the unlettered and the unwashed (cheap shot just to make me laugh while I took another drink). But seriously, I think of the difference between these bands the way I think of the difference between shows like (and bear with me as I'm making this up on the fly) SportsNight and Survivor. The high road to differentiation from the norm vs. the low road. Better TV vs Cheaper TV. Acquiring more skill to be BETTER than the others vs ignoring skill and differentiating through image and attitude. I'm sure I could have done a better job of that had I been sober...but, let's continue... The Dan wrote (and writes) intricate music (unusual and difficult chord changes, time signature changes, etc.) that sounds smooth, but has a very dark underside. Their lyrics are complex (sometimes impenetrable) tales of drug abuse, losers, and old men having questionable relationships with young women. Yet these songs are often played in malls. The Clash wrote songs with obvious lyrics of rebellion and teenage rage (I'm way out of my area of expertise as there are only a few clash songs I recall). Who's REALLY the more subversive band here? The Dan has people who hate (or know nothing about) Jazz listening to jazz-inflected music, filled with snarky and, sometimes, evil lyrics. Does the Clash infect people unwittingly? OK...let's move on. There is more, but I have to same something for the inevitable back-and-forth (plus the fact that I'm far drunker than I was when I started this diatribe). I will end with this. What do MUSICIANS think? By "musicians", I don't mean any dork with a guitar. I mean RESPECTED professionals. In fact, I'd take that further. What do the mentors of the mentors of the mentors of these musicians think? I'm guessing that's not a real discussion. OK, I'm boring me. Time to check the other threads. I can only tell you that enough time working in studios has taught me that refinement to the point that SD take it sucks the life out of all that is interesting in music -- for me. It negates the listener for the cult of the genius. The lyrics, for me, smack of "oh, aren't we clever," rather than just being clever. I know I like material that, for others, is probably the same way. While I like some art-rock (I am a devout fan of Brian Eno's solo records), I generally need some kind of rough edge to like it 'as' rock. Otherwise, if I want masterful proficiency, I'll listen to some Schoenberg or Kurt Weill (Brecht and Weill were the real best songwriting duo of the 20th century, btw just razzing ya). What musicians think really doesn't matter, because musicians have built up a canon for themselves to recognize Steely Dan for one thing and the Clash for another, while at the end it's all really a sliding scale of subjectivity. You can recognize the complexity and craft in something but that doesn't necessarily make it better -- better for you, perhaps, and that's the cool thing about music. No one here is being forced to write songs for the glory of God or nation. Who's more subversive? I don't know. SD can get played in shopping malls, and that means they become 'mall music,' their intent be damned. And drugs and sex with young women are 'safe' taboos if you ask me. They're the things the world is begging for but which are constantly dangled and denied. I have little interest in either. Back to the mall: it's the same with the Clash in Hot Topic -- now, they are mall music, too, irony of ironies. With the luxury of being around when something 'happens,' like the punk moment or Steely Dan, you probably get a much better perspective on it. But I think you can divorce the no-talent bands of today from the punk bands of early on who were, at least, talented for having a real idea beyond making money -- an idea that rock and roll was only ever about taking the safe thing and appropriating it for unintended, and hopefully unsafe, use.
GG Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 -- an idea that rock and roll was only ever about taking the safe thing and appropriating it for unintended, and hopefully unsafe, use. I thought rock n roll was a way for really hideous looking guys to get laid if they could strum a guitar?
The Dean Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 I can only tell you that enough time working in studios has taught me that refinement to the point that SD take it sucks the life out of all that is interesting in music -- for me. It negates the listener for the cult of the genius. The lyrics, for me, smack of "oh, aren't we clever," rather than just being clever. I know I like material that, for others, is probably the same way. While I like some art-rock (I am a devout fan of Brian Eno's solo records), I generally need some kind of rough edge to like it 'as' rock. Otherwise, if I want masterful proficiency, I'll listen to some Schoenberg or Kurt Weill (Brecht and Weill were the real best songwriting duo of the 20th century, btw just razzing ya). What musicians think really doesn't matter, because musicians have built up a canon for themselves to recognize Steely Dan for one thing and the Clash for another, while at the end it's all really a sliding scale of subjectivity. You can recognize the complexity and craft in something but that doesn't necessarily make it better -- better for you, perhaps, and that's the cool thing about music. No one here is being forced to write songs for the glory of God or nation. Who's more subversive? I don't know. SD can get played in shopping malls, and that means they become 'mall music,' their intent be damned. And drugs and sex with young women are 'safe' taboos if you ask me. They're the things the world is begging for but which are constantly dangled and denied. I have little interest in either. Back to the mall: it's the same with the Clash in Hot Topic -- now, they are mall music, too, irony of ironies. With the luxury of being around when something 'happens,' like the punk moment or Steely Dan, you probably get a much better perspective on it. But I think you can divorce the no-talent bands of today from the punk bands of early on who were, at least, talented for having a real idea beyond making money -- an idea that rock and roll was only ever about taking the safe thing and appropriating it for unintended, and hopefully unsafe, use. i will respond, but my brain and my fingers are having quite the war, right now.
The Dean Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Imagine how bored you'd be with yourself if you were sober. Wow...why did I put a smiley there?
GG Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 i will respond, but my brain and my fingers are having quite the war, right now. Which one will unfurl Mission Accomplished banner?
The Dean Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Which one will unfurl Mission Accomplished banner? Both know better than to repeat the treasonous acts of the thug who currently sits in our White House. My apologies to treasonous thugs everywhere.
I 90 Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 After much deliberation I have decided to remove " Lost in the Supermarket" and "Train in Vain" from my Ipod. They are too..too..well... Steely Dan-nish.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 30, 2007 Author Posted March 30, 2007 I can only tell you that enough time working in studios has taught me that refinement to the point that SD take it sucks the life out of all that is interesting in music -- for me. It negates the listener for the cult of the genius. The lyrics, for me, smack of "oh, aren't we clever," rather than just being clever. I know I like material that, for others, is probably the same way. While I like some art-rock (I am a devout fan of Brian Eno's solo records), I generally need some kind of rough edge to like it 'as' rock. Otherwise, if I want masterful proficiency, I'll listen to some Schoenberg or Kurt Weill (Brecht and Weill were the real best songwriting duo of the 20th century, btw just razzing ya). What musicians think really doesn't matter, because musicians have built up a canon for themselves to recognize Steely Dan for one thing and the Clash for another, while at the end it's all really a sliding scale of subjectivity. You can recognize the complexity and craft in something but that doesn't necessarily make it better -- better for you, perhaps, and that's the cool thing about music. No one here is being forced to write songs for the glory of God or nation. Who's more subversive? I don't know. SD can get played in shopping malls, and that means they become 'mall music,' their intent be damned. And drugs and sex with young women are 'safe' taboos if you ask me. They're the things the world is begging for but which are constantly dangled and denied. I have little interest in either. Back to the mall: it's the same with the Clash in Hot Topic -- now, they are mall music, too, irony of ironies. With the luxury of being around when something 'happens,' like the punk moment or Steely Dan, you probably get a much better perspective on it. But I think you can divorce the no-talent bands of today from the punk bands of early on who were, at least, talented for having a real idea beyond making money -- an idea that rock and roll was only ever about taking the safe thing and appropriating it for unintended, and hopefully unsafe, use. In other words: Steely Dan SUCKS.
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 I thought rock n roll was a way for really hideous looking guys to get laid if they could strum a guitar? Therein lie the legacies of Rush and Yes.
/dev/null Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 Therein lie the legacies of Rush and Yes. hey, i'm going to see Rush in June. Tickets go on sale this weekend
The Dean Posted March 30, 2007 Posted March 30, 2007 I can only tell you that enough time working in studios has taught me that refinement to the point that SD take it sucks the life out of all that is interesting in music -- for me. It negates the listener for the cult of the genius. The lyrics, for me, smack of "oh, aren't we clever," rather than just being clever. I know I like material that, for others, is probably the same way. While I like some art-rock (I am a devout fan of Brian Eno's solo records), I generally need some kind of rough edge to like it 'as' rock. Otherwise, if I want masterful proficiency, I'll listen to some Schoenberg or Kurt Weill (Brecht and Weill were the real best songwriting duo of the 20th century, btw just razzing ya). What musicians think really doesn't matter, because musicians have built up a canon for themselves to recognize Steely Dan for one thing and the Clash for another, while at the end it's all really a sliding scale of subjectivity. You can recognize the complexity and craft in something but that doesn't necessarily make it better -- better for you, perhaps, and that's the cool thing about music. No one here is being forced to write songs for the glory of God or nation. Who's more subversive? I don't know. SD can get played in shopping malls, and that means they become 'mall music,' their intent be damned. And drugs and sex with young women are 'safe' taboos if you ask me. They're the things the world is begging for but which are constantly dangled and denied. I have little interest in either. Back to the mall: it's the same with the Clash in Hot Topic -- now, they are mall music, too, irony of ironies. With the luxury of being around when something 'happens,' like the punk moment or Steely Dan, you probably get a much better perspective on it. But I think you can divorce the no-talent bands of today from the punk bands of early on who were, at least, talented for having a real idea beyond making money -- an idea that rock and roll was only ever about taking the safe thing and appropriating it for unintended, and hopefully unsafe, use. You make a point or two, RtDB...let's acknowledge them: Studio over-refinement: It sure CAN suck, sometimes. I've heard production that just sucked the life out of the music, or added nothing other than frills that didn't contribute to the musicality of the songs. Often the production is at the direction of a producer trying to give the band a new sound, make the songs more commercial, "re-invent" the image of an artist, etc. But, that's just NOT what the Dan does. Fagen and Becker are in total charge of the production (and they do it THEIR way). They worked for years with Gary Katz as the prodcuder, but he was mostly a liason between the boys and the record label. They hire the best engineers in the biz, but The Dan calls the shots. In the "Making of Aja" (not the exact name, which escapes me) TV special, one or two of the studio musicians notes that contrary to what most people think, Fagen and Becker are not just perfectionists. He said something to the effect of: "They make you be perfect...THEN, you have to make it sound natural, and like music." Perfection is never the goal...MUSIC is the goal (not image, not money, not outrage nor the emoting of teenage angst. Just music (...oh, and getting p#ssy, I think they've admitted that ). The lyrics: That's a tough one for me. I don't agree the lyrics smack of ""oh, aren't we clever", but I can see where you might...particularly, if the music isn't interesting enough for you to to REALLY examine them through repeated listening and study. But, to me The Dan is a lot like what Marv probably was to Thurman (everything is relatable to the Bills!). I love having to do a little research, pick up a book (or google a reference), to get to the bottom of the lyrics. Proficiency: You say, "if I want masterful proficiency, I'll listen to some Schoenberg or Kurt Weill"...DAMN, I really don't like Schoenberg, but i get your point, I think proficiency is important (at least as a goal) in most music. As you know, I'm a big jazz fan, but I believe similarly to what I think Becker and Fagen and John Mayer think. Jazz, rock, funk, R&B. blues are all just shades of modern music and the role of the great musician is to grow as an artist in these areas. Separating "jazz" as an area for expertise, but not for rock just seems like an out for people who don't want to learn, grow and well...practice. I LOVED the Brecht and Weill shot...I can take it as well as dish it out. Obviously, I'll never convince you to like Steely Dan, and I doubt I'll suddenly start liking the sounds The Clash. That's all cool and, actually a beautiful thing. But, let me make this last suggestion (to you and the others who don't get or appreciate The Dan): Don't think of Steely Dan as a rock band...they aren't, (although they have some rock songs). Don't judge them "smooth jazz", they are not (although they do get some play on those radio stations). They aren't art rock, not Progressive (although very "progressive") and they certainly aren't disco (but they can play some serious funk, when called for). They are Steely Dan and they play Steely Dan Music. They aren't rock stars...they are musicians and songwriters. I would judge them with the likes of Duke Ellington, Debussy, perhaps David Grisman and maybe even Frank Zappa (to an extent). BTW, how about those Buffalo Bills?
Recommended Posts